She has performed same sex marriages (one in the chambers of the SCOTUS)
and openly supported gay marriage.

This gives the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Under law anything that can reasonably be considered a conflict of interest is grounds for recusal.

Kagan has the same problem, I believe.

On an issue of this magnitude the justices MUST make every effort to avoid any appearance of bias, otherwise the decision is tainted.

Its their oath, and its the law.
I support gay marriage.
I also support strict guidelines for the Justices of the highest court in the land.

If it was in their oath, show me where.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx

The statement "justices MUST make every effort to avoid any appearance of bias," appears to be a complete fabrication or a gross misinterpretation.

Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code reads “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United Statesshall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

"justices MUST make every effort to avoid any appearance of bias," is what you said. That text does not reflect such a sentiment.

Splitting hairs?

I stand by my statement that judges MUST make every effort to maintain impartiality, and if there is an appearance of a conflict of interest they MUST recuse themselves.


"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and IMPARTIALLY discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God."

Then you have grossly misinterpreted things like I have said earlier. They can have an opinion. They can still judge impartially. If you don't think that's the case, then we have never had an impartial supreme court justice in the history of this nation.

why do y'all always ignore the part about nothing can always have existed.

it's like yall purposely ignore that impossible

but allow God to come from nothing

She hasn't. And the justices who have the opinion that gay marriage should remain between a man and a woman can have that opinion. Unlike you, I understand that they have the ability to seperate their opinion from their ability to judge impartially. That's why they are judges and you are not.

This should've been settled long ago. Gays can have civil unions awarding them 100% of the benefits of marriage.. One man and One woman still can get married per histories definition and tradition..

Humans are animals.Except in your case. You're clearly a vegetable.

About the only thing that's remained the same over the eons, is Christians needing to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present every step of the way.

I disagree.

No one in their right mind can think that nothing ever exsited.

It is impossible.

She has performed same sex marriages (one in the chambers of the SCOTUS)
and openly supported gay marriage.

This gives the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Under law anything that can reasonably be considered a conflict of interest is grounds for recusal.

Kagan has the same problem, I believe.

On an issue of this magnitude the justices MUST make every effort to avoid any appearance of bias, otherwise the decision is tainted.

Its their oath, and its the law.
I support gay marriage.
I also support strict guidelines for the Justices of the highest court in the land.

Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code reads “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United Statesshall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Damn Blake, funny how any time something gay is discussed, you are always lurking around, always, are you obsessed with homosexuality, Blake? Apparently you aren't bright enough to know how forums work. One doesn't have to be a politician to hang out where politics is being discussed. Grow up Blake.

Apparently it is you who isn't to bright since I hardly post in this particular forum because of jackasses like you.

Why are you using something that I said towards another poster towards me?

Apparently you are not 'bright' enough to know how the forums work.


Grow up boo.

How am I obsessed with homosexuality boo2013?


That's right I'm not dumbass , got it troll?

And dumbass is one word you dumbass.

What is a bible thumper?

Gays have CIVIL CONTRACTS..which is GAY UNIONS..


GAYS ARE MERELY TRYING TO TRAMPLE CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS..that have existed since Abraham...


THIS IS AN ATTACK....Gays ALREADY can be united in the very same way as Hetros..


THEY JUST WANT TO SHIT ON CHRISTIAN CUSTOMS..AND HERITAGES. and try to ERASE CHRISTIANITY BY ROBBING US OF OUR CULTURE..TRADITIONS..AND THE TITLES WE USE


SUCH AS 'MARRIAGE
...

A gay union can never be a MARRIAGE..because MARRIAGE IS ONLY BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN...

You cant call Beer a Coke..

You cant call a Gay union a marriage...its an oxy moron..and makes no sense


THE MANY JEWS IN THE JEWDICIAL JUST-US SYSTEM..ARE there as per the PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION...to destroy America and her Constitution..

they are sick bastards..


When the civil war comes..this will be corrected...

^^^she is butthurt and mad...


@boohoo2013

Yup boohoo2013 is definitely mad.